Summary of the Chapter 4 of the book “teaching practice for English language teachers”

Summarized by: Amirhossein Asefi

Chapter 4: Oral Corrective Feedback

Error correction is one of the most important issues that teachers of second/foreign languages would
like to know a lot about. Many teachers are concerned because they wonder when and how they should
correct their learners’ error. Learner errors are manifested either when they communicate orally or
when they write something. For this reason, the corrective feedback that teachers provide is of two
types: oral and written.

The Nature of Learner Errors

A few decades ago, learner errors were frowned upon because they were associated with formation of
wrong habits. Foreign language teaching specialists are of the opinion that teachers should expect and
accept learners’ error in the same way that parents expect and accept children’s numerous errors while
acquiring their first language. In the literature of English language teaching, a distinction is often made
between mistakes and errors. Mistakes happen due to lapses in one’s performance, whereas errors
occur due to lacks in one’s competence.

There are two main reasons why second language learners make errors. The first reason is the
interference of the learner’s mother tongue which results in interlingual errors. The second reason is
because they are undergoing various stages in the development of the target language and have nothing
to do with the influence of the learners first language. These errors mostly occur because learners
misapply a rule for one item of the language to another item. For this reason, these interlingual errors
are also called developmental or overgeneralization errors because they reflect the developing process
of a learner’s competence shaped by generalizing a rule to similar cases.

Developmental errors are often used as evidence to show that making errors is not always bad because
it shows that the learner experimenting with the language. Language learners are always interested in
trying new things when using the target language. This is similar to the process of forming hypotheses
before doing an experiment. The learner then needs some evidence to test the hypotheses s/he has
formed. A main source of this evidence comes from the teacher feedback. Based on which the learner
decides to confirm, reject, or alter the previous hypotheses.

Equally important though is the process of fossilization that teachers need to be aware of. Some
learners may receive little corrective feedback from their teachers, or may not pay enough attention to
the feedback they receive in order to alter their output. As a result, the speech of many language
learners is characterized by certain wrong forms which are cast in stone over time and seem not to be
fixed by further correction or extra input (Allwright and Bailey, 1991).
Treatment of Oral Errors

As far back as forty years age Hendrickson (1978, p. 389) posted a number of fundamental questions
regarding correction of errors, which are still topics of heated debate today. These questions are as
follows:

1.Should Learner Errors Be Corrected? The first step in dealing with errors is to decide whether to
correct them or not. This is not a very easy decision to make as it depends on a number of factors such
as the learners age, learning style, level of confidence, etc. Perhaps the most important point is deciding
whether to correct or ignore the error depends on issue of learner readiness.

Giving feedback to students on a form they are not ready to learn yet will not benefit them. In fact,
error correction only helps learners when they are at the right learning stage in terms of their
interlanguage development. Correcting forms that are far beyond the learner’s current level of
competence will result in confusion and frustration.

Thus, the answer to the question of whether learners’ errors should be corrected or not is positive
provided that they are ready to understand the correction.

2.When Should Learner Errors Be Corrected? The option available to a teacher are immediate, delayed,
and postponed. The immediate feedback given to the students may be cognitively positive, but it is
certainly affectively negative. On the contrary, postponed feedback provides learners with an affectively
positive support, but it may not be cognitively so effective due to the time interval. Delayed correction
seems to be a good compromise because it is both affectively and cognitively positive – it neither
involves interrupting students nor keeps them wait too long to become aware of their errors.

But there are times when it is good practice to interrupt a student and make the correction immediately
depending on the type of activity the student is engaged in and the type of error s/he has made.

3.Which learner Errors Should be Corrected? Two points should be considered in response to this
question: error gravity and purpose of the activity. Error gravity refers to the perceived seriousness of an
error. In this way, errors are divided into two brad categories: global and local. According to Richards
and Schmidt (2010), a global error is an error in the use of a main element of sentence structure, which
makes a sentence or utterance extremely difficult to understand. On the contrary, an error that does
not cause problems of comprehension like omission of an article or the third person singular morpheme
is called a local error.

Thus, when it comes to the question of which learner errors should be corrected, the obvious answer is
that global errors should be given priority because they impair communication. Some local errors are so
minor that the teacher can decide to ignore them.

The second point worth noting is the purpose of the activity, namely whether it promotes accuracy or
fluency. Language proficiency can be characterized in terms of both accuracy and fluency.
As Ur (1996) rightly argues, the teaching of language components, namely grammar, vocabulary, and
pronunciation tends to be accuracy-oriented, which teaching the four language skills is fluency-oriented.

Therefore, again regarding the question of which learner errors should be corrected, we can conclude
hat the errors made during accuracy-centered work should be corrected immediately, because after all
the goal of such activities is accurate production. However, when it comes to fluency-centered work, the
teacher can be more tolerant of errors and either ignore them or treat them later provided they are not
errors which impede the process of communication.

4.Who Should Correct the Learner Errors and How They Should be Corrected? The overall consensus
among the majority of language teaching experts is as follows: 1. The students should first be given the
chance to correct themselves by giving help to them (self-correction). 2. If the students cannot get it
right, the teacher should invite other students to help out (peer correction). 3. If no other students can
make the correction, the teacher should provide the correct form (teacher correction).

These three steps work particularly well with accuracy-centered activities. Regarding fluency work, it is
suggested that teachers not interrupt students frequently. This involves ignoring minor errors and gently
correcting the errors that are likely to cause miscommunication. Whatever decision the teacher adopts,
the same recommended correction sequence is as true for fluency work as it is for accuracy activities.
The only difference is that teachers need to be more tolerant of errors when fluency work is in progress.

Self-correction. The teacher can use the following techniques to help learners correct themselves (Davis
and Pearse, 2000; Harmer, 2012; Spratt, Pulverness, and Williams, 2005).

1. The teacher can use facial expression or gestures to show that something is wrong.

2. The teacher can use echo correcting, which means s/he repeats what a student says with a rising
intonation to indicate where the mistake is.

3. The teacher can identify the mistake by focusing the student’s attention on it and telling him or her
that there is a problem. The teacher can say things like “Are you sure?” to indicate the mistake.

4. The teacher can indicate the mistake by giving the students a choice.

5. The teacher can show students that they have made a mistake by using his or her fingers. An
interesting point regarding correcting students in accuracy-oriented activities suggested by Edge (1989)
is that it should not become too mechanical.

Peer correction. As Davis and Pearse (2000) argue, teachers should not insist on self-correction too
much, or they will make sensitive and shy students want to disappear through the floor! Thus, before
embarrassing students by putting too much pressure on them, teachers are advised to invite other
students to make the correction. Gower et al (1995, p. 167) suggest advantages for peer correction.
Despite those advantages, teachers should use peer correction cautiously for two reasons (Edge, 1989).
First, it is likely that when the teacher asks for peer correction, the same two or three good students
always offer the correct form. In this case, the teacher should call on other students to participate.
Second, some students may not be used to receiving correction from a peer and may listen negatively to
the other students who do the correction.

Therefore, teachers should not introduce peer correction into their classes prematurely unless they are
sure about their students’ attitudes and sensitivities toward it. Otherwise, instead of fostering learning,
this practice is likely to create tension in class.

Teacher correction. As mentioned earlier, when neither self-correction nor peer correction is succesfull,
the teacher should do the correction. The following ways are recommended techniques for teacher
correction (Brown, 2007; Ur, 2012).

1.Recast. The teacher reformulates the correct version of the student’s wrong form.

2.Metalinguistic feedback. The teacher provides an explanation for the mistake by using grammatical or
linguistic terminology.

3.Explicit correction. The teacher explicitly tells the student what the incorrect form is and provides him
or her with the correct form.

Finally, teachers should remember that an inappropriate correction may make a student completely
demotivate.

Therefore, teachers are advised to take the following factors into consideration once more when
correcting students’ errors: purpose of the activity (fluency and accuracy), seriousness of the error
(global versus local), and learner factors (age, need, proficiency level). Taking all these factors into
account, teachers can decide whether to ignore the error or to give it an immediate or delayed
treatment.